On wednesday Facebook’s monitoring boardBy issuing a final non-final declaration regarding the status of David Trump’s account, the agency claims that it is a pseudo-legal, Q&A-independent body that has the power to review and potentially overturn decisions on government additions.
The former president has been fired from Facebook and its affiliate Instagram after Jan sparked deadly riots in the capital in January, in a scathing attempt to bar Congress from certifying Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election. In short, the board punted Directly on Facebook, Has upheld the moratorium itself but Trump has made rules on arbitrary claims of an “indefinite” ban on Facebook to handle the situation. The oversight board asked Facebook to make a real decision to permanently ban Trump or unlock his account within six months.
With everything about this godly entity, the inevitable pile-on took on an explicit division. Republicans and right-wingers saw Trump’s decision not to return to the site – making any attempt at a political resurgence as a deterrent to their values and free speech. Democrats and civil rights groups generally expressed relief that the oversight board had released more angry posts from the former president, but also focused on the ridicule of the whole initiative.
It turns out that only people have accepted Facebook’s attempt to brand the oversight board as a sovereign entity hook, line and sunken pseudo-government force. Right-wingers are suddenly confronted with a philosophy of corporate dystopia that they don’t like, with some Republicans turning to a higher power for help. – Charlie Kirk, chief among them
Evil Diaper Lad Campus Republican and Facebook-spamming company The turning point is not the USA, we do not mean God, there is no possibility of intervention, something like that: the Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court should raise the “verdict” of Facebook’s “Oversight Board” which supports the expulsion of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
It’s a big technology, not a standing corporate corporation and it’s gone too far. Lots.
(The decision is not subject to review by Scott, unless historians have historically ridiculed the laws in the lower courts and the judges have all decided to join Justice Clarence Thomas to set the precedent and declare the law. Digital platforms as general carriers Can’t ban anyone.)
The Facebook Oversight Board has more power than the United Nations.
The Conservatives were concerned about handing over our sovereignty to multinational corporations. We just made the mistake.
Will Chamberlain, co-publisher of the right-wing magazine Human Events, Tweeted, “The issue of censorship in a corporate committee has no legitimacy other than the random spending on Twitter.” Random Cue Conspiracy Theoretical Congress turned woman Lauren Boebert, issued a Obscure threat: “Facebook will pay the price. Mark my words. “
More generally, Republicans use the Oversight Board’s judgment as an opportunity to continue to perpetuate damage to the so-called conservative bias in Facebook algorithms (consistently made up mostly of pure bullshit, right-wing pundits, and the media). Top actors on the site). According to CNNThe general circus of right-wing sites, including Fox, Breitbart, and Gateway Pundit, all with coverage declared the decision as Orwell Censorship. Senator Tom Cotton said the Overtight Board should not investigate “freedom of speech” when former White House Chief of Staff radio host Mark Mero and guest representative Jim Jordan both agreed that “it’s time to break them.” [Big Tech] Up
Trump Issued a statement At several media outlets that we don’t give a shit about.
The response from Democrats and activist organizations focused less on whether Trump’s fate, the corporate funhouse carnival process by which the decision was made, was significant at all.
New Jersey Representative Frank Pallon, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Tweeted“Facebook is spreading and spreading chaos and misinformation, and its oversight board structure and rules generally seem to ignore this disturbing reality.” He added that “real accountability will only come with legal action.”
Evan Greer, director of Future for the Future’s digital rights nonprofit, told Gizmodo in a statement: We can go where the lines need to be drawn, but simply demanding more and faster removal of the content will not solve the real damage we are seeing. “
“It’s fair to say that Facebook refused to answer a number of questions from the Oversight Committee about its algorithm and actual design decision,” Gray said. Added. “We need to strike at the root of the problem: to crack down on big tech giants, to ban surveillance ads and transparent-algorithmic manipulations, and to fight against policies that address this parasitic business model while preserving the transformational and democratizing power of the Internet.” Working for justice and liberation is a tool of the social movement.
David Segal, executive director of the Demand Progress Education Fund, a nonprofit that advocates no-confidence law, told Gizmodo in a statement The Oversight Board is a smokescreen for Facebook business practices.
“Facebook’s exclusive status means it doesn’t compete in a free market: not on privacy, not in algorithms, not in the online advertising market – which accelerates the proliferation of provocative content.” Se “is what Facebook ‘Oversite’ boards say and what they don’t. – Attention and credibility to Facebook – We give Facebook a pass for its unjust and dangerous monopolistic practices. “
A civil rights group called the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights under Law focused on the board’s decision not to ban Trump altogether.
David Brody, head of the group’s Digital Justice Initiative, wrote to Gizmodo that “Facebook must ban former President Trump immediately and permanently.” He added that the Oversight Board’s decision “did not evaluate the case in its entirety and used legal technology to avoid answering tough questions. “Failing to deal with history. Excessive reliance on formal schools of legal analysis enters the dominant power structure by blinding the big picture.”
Greer told Gizmodo that while Facebook’s exclusive business practices, lack of transparency, and growing pressure to monetize hate speech and publicity, trying to stay in power at the company could do more harm than bad advice law. For example, Republicans and Democrats alike have noted Section 230, the law that protects users from most liability for content produced, including legislation. Unexpected consequences Or threats Legal basis Internet economy.
“The most dangerous thing right now can happen if the public accepts the idea that lawyers should just do something about Big Tech,” Grayer wrote. “We need thoughtful policies that actually look at the damage, not the more biased milk and work for the biased.”